The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines radicular pain as pain perceived as arising in a limb or the trunk wall caused by ectopic activation of nociceptive afferent fibers in a spinal nerve or its roots or other neuropathic mechanisms. This pain is often stabbing or shooting with paresthesia and tingling or lancinating elements, but may well occur against a background of more dull aching pain.1 2
The most frequent cause of LRS is a herniated intervertebral disc in the lumbar region where the nerve root is compressed by disc material that has ruptured through its surrounding annulus.3–5 3,4 5,6 7,8 9
The guidelines of the Dutch General Practitioners Society (GPS) advise a conservative approach in the first 6 to 8 weeks of LRS, since ∼75% of the patients recover spontaneously.8 8 8 8,10–13
The GPS’ guidelines advise steroid injections if the patient has severe pain but does not respond to opiates in the first 6 to 8 weeks, is not eligible for surgery and/or has multiple herniated discs.8 14
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have been conducted over the last decade.15–23 15,20,21
In most of the aforementioned systematic reviews saline injections and local anesthetic agents were lumped together in the same comparator group. Although normal saline is commonly used as a placebo and epidural saline injections show a lack of effectiveness for managing LRS in general,24 22,25 26,27
Therefore, this systematic review aims to assess the clinically relevant effectiveness of ESIs as compared with saline injections or noninvasive usual care in adults suffering from LRS caused by a herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The recommendations of the updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group were followed for this review.28 29
Eligibility Criteria for Studies in This Review
To be eligible for inclusion in this review the comparator must consist of saline injections or noninvasive usual care. Noninvasive usual care was defined as either oral analgesics, bed rest, counseling, or exercise therapy, or a combination thereof.
Further eligibility criteria are:
Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and disclosed results of unpublished RCTs, in English, Dutch, German, or French.
Adults (18 y and older) with LRS with or without sensory deficits or muscular paresis, caused by a herniated intervertebral disc or lumbar spinal stenosis. RCTs including patients with LRS presumably caused by a herniated intervertebral disc or lumbar spinal stenosis based on clinical symptoms were also included. When studies included patients with low back pain with and without radicular signs, but did not analyze the LRS-subgroup separately, at least 80% of the patients must experience radicular symptoms. Studies with an unspecified proportion of patients with radicular symptoms were excluded.
Interventions consisting of an ESI with or without a local anesthetic agent.
RCTs must report on one or more of the following crucial outcomes for effectiveness: function, pain intensity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
There was no restriction with regard to the follow-up period. Treatment effects were classified as post-treatment (within 1 wk after the last treatment session), short-term (between 1 wk and 3 mo after the last treatment session), medium-term (between 3 mo and <1 year after the last treatment session) and long-term (1 y or longer after the last treatment session). If 1 study had multiple measurements within one of these follow-up periods, the measurement nearest to the cut-off point was used. For measurements classified as long-term, the latest measurement was used.
Exclusion criteria were: crossover studies, RCTs with surgery as comparator, RCTs with surgery as part of the trial protocol, RCTs including pregnant or postpartum women, RCTs with patients whose symptoms related to facet joint or sacroiliac joint conditions. RCTs including patients with the cauda equina syndrome, degenerative disc disease, vascular intermittent claudication, prior back surgery, tumors or cancer were also excluded.
Study Search
A comprehensive search with controlled vocabulary and free text search terms for LRS, steroid injections and respective synonyms was conducted in MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL on September 24, 2018. Disclosed results of unpublished RCTs were also searched through the US National Library of Medicine (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ https://links.lww.com/CJP/A760
Data Selection and Extraction
After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of all studies were independently screened for eligibility by pairs of 2 reviewers. T.M.dB. screened all references while H.S.M. and I.B.dG. screened a half (separate halves). Disagreements were discussed between the reviewers until consensus was reached. If consensus was not reached, a third reviewer (either I.B.dG. or H.S.M.) made the final decision. This was followed by independent thorough scanning of the full-text of the eligible studies. Again, T.M.dB. reviewed all texts and the second assessor was either H.S.M. or I.B.dG. Disagreement was handled in a similar manner. Once full-text selection was completed, data relevant to the outcomes were extracted from the selected studies. If the results presented in the original study were not applicable in a meta-analysis (eg, no SD and confidence interval [CI] were reported, only median and range were reported, or results were reported in a figure), the authors were contacted and disclosure of original data was requested.
Measurement Instruments
Studies using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI),30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Risk of Bias in Individual Studies
All articles were independently assessed for Risk of Bias (RoB) by T.M.dB. and I.B.dG. The 7 RoB-items were: random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other bias. Items were scored as low, unclear or high RoB based on a consensus meeting between the reviewers and, if necessary, a third review author, H.S.M.
Data Analysis
Pooling of Data
Studies featuring patients with LRS because of a herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis were analyzed separately. Meta-analyses with an inverse variance method were performed in Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan).41
For dichotomous data, a risk ratio (RR) was calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method.42 42 42
Sensitivity analyses were performed based on the overall RoB of individual studies. Studies with an unclear or high overall RoB assessment in the selection bias, performance bias or detection bias domains were classified as a study with a high overall RoB. Studies with a maximum of one high RoB and one unclear RoB assessments in the attrition bias, reporting bias or other bias domains were classified as a “low overall RoB”. The same overall RoB classification was given to studies that contained a maximum of 2 unclear RoB assessments in these domains. In case a study contained 2 or more high RoB or 3 unclear RoB assessments in the attrition bias, reporting bias or other bias domains the study was classified “high overall RoB”.
Where applicable, subgroup analyses were performed on duration of symptoms (≤3 mo is acute, >3 mo is chronic), epidural injection approach (caudal, transforaminal, or interlaminar), if the patient received repeat injections or just a single injection, and if the steroid was mixed with a local anesthetic agent (eg, lidocaine) before injection. Eligibility of studies to a subgroup was judged by J.H. A subgroup analysis was only performed if there were at least 2 studies with a combined total minimum of 100 patients.
A random-effects model was used if the number of eligible studies exceeded 5.43,44 I 2 test (<40%=no heterogeneity; 40% to 70%=moderate heterogeneity; and ≥70%=substantial heterogeneity).42,43,45
In the event of multiple similar treatment arms being compared within one study, similar arms where combined according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions in Section 7.7.3.8.42 46
Publication Bias
Publication bias was checked when 10 or more studies were eligible for a meta-analysis, by creating a funnel plot and by a formal statistical test of asymmetry, the Egger test, performed in RevMan.47
Clinically Relevant Differences
To define whether or not a significant (P ≤0.05) result of a meta-analysis is a clinically relevant effect, boundaries for minimal clinical differences were established before performing the meta-analyses. For outcomes regarding function, the MD between the intervention group and comparator group should be 10 points on the ODI, 20 points on the QBPQ and 5 points on the RMDQ.48 48 42
GRADE
The GRADE approach was used to determine the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group.28,42 49
RESULTS
The literature search resulted in 2809 unique records (Fig. 1 ). After screening for eligibility, 17 studies (reported in 18 articles) about ESIs fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Table 1 ). One of the excluded studies did fulfill the inclusion criteria, but was eventually excluded because it was unclear if patients were randomized. Thus, we did not consider this study to be a true RCT.68
FIGURE 1: PRISMA flow diagram of the study search and selection process.
TABLE 1 -
Characteristics of Included Studies
References
Participants
Intervention
Comparator
Outcome*
Notes
Abedini et al50
56 patients with radicular chronic LBP because of a herniated disc diagnosed by radiologic evidence or CT scan. Onset of back pain was during the last 6 wk and patients were nonresponsive to systematic pharmacotherapy. 31 women. Mean age in years: I 42.0, C 42.6
Fluoroscopic guided epidural injection of 80 mg methylprednisolone (n=28)
Fluoroscopic guided epidural injection of normal saline solution of equal volume (n=28)
ODI Post-treatment: I 34.2 (10.8)/C 29.8 (8.4) Short-term: I 6.2 (1.9)/C 7.8 (1.8) VAS (0-10) for pain Post-treatment: I 6.2 (1.2)/C 6.6 (0.8) Short-term: I 1.6 (0.6)/C 2.0 (0.7)
Dropouts not mentioned Received financial support from the Trabriz University of Medical Sciences
Arden et al51
228 patients with a clinical diagnosis of unilateral sciatica for at least 4 wk to 18 mo. 108 women. Mean age in years: I 43, C 44
Three lumbar injections of, 3 weeks apart, 80 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine (n=120)
Three injections, 3 weeks apart, in the interspinous ligament of 2 mL of normal saline (n=108)
ODI (change score) Short-term: I −12 (19)/C −12 (21) Medium-term: I -16 (23)/C −14 (24) VAS (0-100) for back pain (change score) Short-term: I −4 (28)/C −7 (32) Medium-term: I -8 (31)/C −9 (33) VAS (0-100) for leg pain (change score) Short-term: I -13 (33)/C −18 (33) Medium-term: I −17 (36)/C −20 (34)
Dropouts: I 28, C 26 Injections at week 3 or 6 were dropped if the ODI improved by 75% beforehand Received financial support from the National Health Service Research and Development program, the UK
Buchner et al52
36 patients with radicular pain and MRI-confirmed disc herniation with a median pain duration of 8 wk. 13 women. Mean age in years: I 37, C 32
Three lumbar epidural injections within 14 d of hospitalization, of 100 mg methylprednisolone in 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine in combination with the control treatment (n=17)
Initially standardized conservative treatment consisting of bed rest, oral analgesics, and NSAIDs. Followed by a standard program of graded rehabilitation of hydrotherapy, electroanalgesia, back school, and/or spinal mobilizing physiotherapy (n=19)
HFAQ‡ VAS (0-100) for pain ‡
No dropouts
Bush & Hillier53
23 patients with lumbar nerve root compression signs and unilateral sciatica for 5 wk to 13 mo. 8 women. Mean age in years: I 38.2, C 37.3
Two caudal injections, 2 weeks apart, of 80 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 25 mL normal saline with 0.5% procaine hydrochloride (n=12)
Two caudal injections, 2 weeks apart, of 25 mL normal saline (n=11)
VAS (0-100) for pain Short-term: I 16 (15.74)/C 45 (32.18) Long-term: I 14.2 (28.47)/C 29.6 (39.88)
Dropouts: I 1, C 4.
Carette et al54
158 patients with radicular pain and CT scan-confirmed disc herniation, for 4 wk to 1 y with a score higher than 20 on the ODI. 69 women. Mean age in years: I 39.0, C 40.6
Epidural injection of 80 mg (2 mL) methylprednisolone acetate in 8 mL isotonic saline (n=78). Injection was repeated after 3 and/or 6 wk if the patient did not show improvement. Mean number of injections was 2.1
Epidural injection of 1 mL isotonic saline (n=80). Injection was repeated after 3 and/or 6 wk if the patient did not show improvement. Mean number of injections was 2.1
ODI (change score) Short-term: I 17.3 (20.6)/C 15.4 (25.5) SIP (change score) Short-term: I 9.2 (10.8)/C 8.0 (14.1) VAS (0-100) for leg pain (change score) Short-term: I 26.5 (36.0)/C 22.5 (34.4)
Dropouts: I 13, C 22 Received financial support from the Medical Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Arthritis Society
Cohen et al55
58 patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy for 4 wk to 6 mo and MRI-confirmed pathologic disc conditions correlating with the symptoms. 17 women. Mean age in years: I 41.5, C 42.3
Two fluoroscopic guided epidural injections, 2 weeks apart, with a total volume of 2 mL consisting of 60 mg methylprednisolone acetate and 0.5 mL saline (n=28)
Two fluoroscopic guided epidural injections, 2 weeks apart, 2 mL normal saline (n=30)
NRS (0-10) for back pain Short-term: I 3.49 (2.60)/C 4.01 (2.49) NRS (0-10) for leg pain Short-term: I 2.54 (3.04)/C 3.78 (2.84) ODI Short-term: I 24.10 (19.24)/C 30.00 (18.21) Success Rate defined as complete relief of leg pain (NRS 0-10) or ≥50% improvement in leg pain 1 month after treatment plus a positive GPE: Short-term: I 21 of 28/C 15 of 30
No dropouts 6 patients (I 4, C 2) received one injection Received financial support from the John P. Murtha Neuroscience and Pain Institute, International Spinal Intervention Society, and Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research
Cohen et al56
145 patients with radicular pain because of either an MRI-confirmed herniated disc (I 86%, C 90%) or spinal stenosis (I 14%, C 10%) for 6 wk to 4 y and an NRS for leg pain ≥3. 38 women. Mean age in years: I 43.8, C 41.7
Either a fluoroscopic guided transforaminal epidural injection (total volume 3 mL) for patients with unilateral pain (n=62) or a fluoroscopic guided interlaminar epidural injection (total volume 4 mL) for patients with bilateral pain (n=11) of 60 mg depomethylprednisolone and 1 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine plus thrice daily over-capsulated placebo pills ranging from 1800 mg/d to 3600 mg/d for 15 to 24 d (n=73). Tramadol and NSAIDs could be prescribed when needed as rescue medications
Fluoroscopic guided injection of just over 3 mL saline in the posterior ligaments 1-2 cm proximal to the epidural space plus thrice daily over-capsulated 300 mg gabapentin ranging from 1800 mg/d to 3600 mg/d for 15 to 24 d (n=72). Tramadol and NSAIDs could be prescribed when needed as rescue medications
NRS (0-10) for average back pain Short-term: I 3.9 (2.7)/C 3.7 (2.5) NRS (0-10) for average leg pain Short-term: I 3.4 (2.7)/3.7 (2.8) ODI Short-term: I 33.6 (19.4)/C 29.6 (16.3) Success Rate defined as a ≥2 points decrease in average leg pain (NRS 0-10) coupled with a positive GPE Short-term: I 27 of 73/C 21 of 72
Dropouts: I 2, C 1 Received financial support from the Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research, Bethesda, MD
Dincer et al57
64 patients with LBP and radicular pain diagnosis based on history, clinical findings and MRI. Pain lasting from 1 to 12 mo with a VAS higher than 40. Patients with protruded lumbar disc herniation were eligible. Patients with extruded or sequestered lumbar disc herniation were excluded. 18 women. Mean age in years: I 28, C 28
Single caudal injection (20 mL) of 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate, 8 mg dexamethasone phosphate, 7 mL 2% prilocaine hydrochloride and 10 mL normal saline plus therapeutic exercise (n=34)
Twice daily, with 12 h intervals, diclophenac sodium 75 mg for 14 consecutive days plus therapeutic exercise (n=30)
ODI Short-term: I 16.2 (9.4)/C 20.3 (10.1) VAS (0-10) for pain Short-term: I 3.3 (1.3)/C 4.1 (1.5)
No dropouts
Ghahreman et al† 58
65 patients with radicular pain because of CT scan or MRI-confirmed disc herniation with a median pain duration of 6 to 96 wk. 29 women. Median age in years: I 49, C 44
Single fluoroscopic guided transforaminal injection of 1.75 mL triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/ mL and 0.75 mL 0.5% bupivacaine (n=28)
Single fluoroscopic guided transforaminal injection of 2 mL normal saline (n=37)
NRS (0-10) for leg pain Short-term: I 4.1 (3.0)/C 5.5 (2.6) Success Rate defined as a complete relief of leg pain (NRS 0-10) or ≥50% improvement in leg pain 1 month after treatment Short-term: I 15 of 28/C 7 of 37
No dropouts. Up to 3 injections were allowed for patients who felt they only benefitted partially from one injection
Iversen et al59
77 patients with clinically confirmed radiating unilateral lumbar radiculopathy for more than 12 wk. All included patients were subjected to an MRI or CT scan; final inclusion was not dependent on the results. All patients either had disc herniation (n=49), disc sequestration (n=25) or recess stenosis (n=1), 33 women. Mean age in years: I 40.1, C 42.8
Two ultrasound guided caudal epidural injections, 2 weeks apart, of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 29 mL normal saline (n=37)
Two subcutaneous injections, 2 weeks apart, of 2 mL normal saline (n=40)
EQ-5D (between group difference)§ § § §
Dropouts: I 3, C 8. Two of 3 treatment arms included in this study. Received financial support from the North Norway Regional Health Authority and Health Region Nord-Trøndelag, Norway
Karppinen et al60
160 patients with unilateral sciatica and MRI-confirmed herniated disc, lasting for 1 to 6 mo. 63 women. Mean age in years: I 43.8, C 43.7
Fluoroscopic guided periradicular injection of either 2 mL or 3 mL combination of methylprednisone (40 mg/mL) and bupivacaine (5 mg/mL) (n=80)
Fluoroscopic guided periradicular injection of either 2 mL or 3 mL isotonic saline (n=80)
ODI (between group difference)§ § §
Dropouts: I 2, C 0. Received financial support from the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation, the Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment, the Finnish Work Environment Fund, and the International Spinal Injection Society
Kotb et al61
48 patients with LBP and radicular symptoms of <6 wk duration because of lumbar disc herniation diagnosed by history, clinical examination and MRI. 4 women. Mean age in years: I 39.1, C 39
Three CT-guided transforaminal injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 1 mL lidocaine 0.02% over a period of 1 month at 10-day intervals (n=12)
Medical treatment in the form of muscle relaxants, NSAIDs and vitamin B complex preparations over a period of 1 month (n=12).
ODI Short-term: I 36.1 (5.6)/C 55 (5.1) VAS (0-10) for back pain Short-term: I 1.0 (0.8)/C 4.8 (1.5)
Dropouts not mentioned. Two of 4 treatment arms did not fulfill inclusion criteria. Characteristics not described
Laiq et al62
52 patients with lumbar radicular pain or radicular pain caused by herniated intervertebral disc or single level disc herniation diagnosed by symptoms and/or MRI. All with a VAS higher than 60 mm 2 wk before treatment. Excluding dropouts: 18 women, mean age in years: I 40, C 42
Single injection of 80 mg methylprednisolone in combination with 3 mL 2% plain xylocaine and 3 mL normal saline in the lumbar epidural space through a midline approach (n=26)
Bed rest, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, and opioids (n=26)
VAS (0-10) for pain Short-term: I 4.5 (1.50)/C 5.0 (1.10) Medium-term: I 6.0 (1.45)/C 6.5 (1.30)
Dropouts: I 1, C 1
Mondal et al63
60 patients with clinically, radiologically and neurophysiologically diagnosed lumbar disc herniation and unilateral radiculopathy with chronic LBP of more than 3 mo with pain intensity limiting function and NRS score above 5. 13 women. Mean age in years: I 42.1, C 48.4
Single fluoroscopic guided transforaminal injection with methylprednisolone (20 mg) and 0.25% bupivacaine (total 2 mL to 3 mL) combined with control (n=30)
Gabapentin (300 mg thrice daily orally) and amitriptyline (25 mg once daily orally), and spine extension exercises on day 0/visit 1 (n=30)
NRS (0-10) for pain (change score) Short-term: I −4.19 (1.00)/C −1.10 (0.77) ODI (change score) Short-term: I −27.58 (5.08)/C −4.65 (4.49)
Dropouts: I 3, C 1 All patients were industrial workers
Nandi & Chowdhery64
98 patients with MRI-confirmed prolapsed lumbar disc and sciatic pain for 1 to 6 mo. All with a VAS higher than 40mm. Excluding dropouts: 39 women, mean age in years: I 43.0, C 42.9
Single lumbar caudal injection of 80 mg methylprednisolone in 18 mL isotonic saline (20 mL in total) (n=49)
Single lumbar caudal injection of 20 mL isotonic saline (n=49)
ODI Short-term: I 35.15 (10.19)/C 40.20 (8.41) RMDQ Short-term: I 11.51 (5.03)/C 13.96 (4.09) VAS (0-100) for pain Short-term: I 34.83 (20.34)/C 45.78 (23.60)
Dropouts: I 2, C 3
Spijker-Huiges et al65,66
73 patients with LRS, as established by the GP, of at least 2 wk and no more than 4 wk. Equal sex distributions in the analyzed group (n=63) with a mean age of 43.7 y for all patients
Lumbar interlaminar epidural injection of 80 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 10 mL of normal saline in combination with control treatment (n=37; analyzed: n=33; SF-36 analyses: n=22)
Unstandardized usual care based on treatment decided by the patient and their GPS (n=36; analyzed: n=30; SF-36 analyses: n=22)
NRS (0-10) for back pain Short-term: I 2.1 (2.5)/C 3.0 (3.0) Medium-term: I 1.9 (2.5)/C 2.0 (2.4) Long-term: I 1.3 (1.9)/C 2.0 (2.9) NRS (0-10) for leg pain Short-term: I 1.6 (2.5)/C 2.7 (2.8) Medium-term: I 1.6 (2.4)/C 1.9 (2.5) Long-term: I 1.0 (2.0)/C 1.4 (2.2) NRS (0-10) for (total) pain Short-term: I 2.5 (2.5)/C 3.2 (2.8) Medium-term: I 2.3 (2.5)/C 2.3 (2.4) Long-term: I 1.3 (2.0)/C 2.1 (3.0) RMDQ Short-term: I 5.3 (5.9)/C 7.6 (6.3) Medium-term: I 3.0 (4.5)/C 5.4 (6.5) Long-term: I 2.3 (3.7)/C 4.1 (6.2) SF-36 MCS Short-term: I 65.0 (10.60)/C 61.2 (11.05) Medium-term: I 67.3 (11.05)/C 64.1 (11.28) Long-term: I 67.0 (11.05)/C 65.2 (11.50) SF-36 PCS Short-term: I 68.9 (11.95)/C 59.4 (12.18) Medium-term: I 77.7 (12.18)/C 63.1 (12.41) Long-term: I 79.5 (11.50)/C 67.6 (12.86)
No dropouts in the analyzed group. SF-36 analyses included a subgroup of participants. Received financial support from the University Medical Center Groningen
Valat et al67
85 patients with sciatica and radicular symptoms, presumably caused by a herniated disc, lasting 15-180 d. At least one nerve root compression sign had to be present. All with a VAS higher than 30 mm. 33 women. Mean age in years: I 43.5, C 38.4
Three interlaminar injections (at 2-day intervals) of 2 mL prednisolone acetate (50 mg) (n=43). NSAIDs were allowed after 20 d of the first injection
Three interlaminar injections (at 2-day intervals) of 2 mL normal saline (n=42). NSAIDs were allowed after 20 d of the first injection
RMDQ Post-treatment: I 12.6 (5.2)/C 12.8 (4.3) Short-term: I 8.5 (5.4)/C 9.1 (5.4) VAS (0-100) for pain Post-treatment: I 31.0 (20.8)/C 34.5 (19.8) Short-term: I 22.1 (20.1)/C 24.8 (25.7)
Dropouts: I 2, C 3. Received financial support from the PHRC 1995, Ministry of Health, France
* Mean (SD), based on results presented in the study stratified by follow-up definition used in this report.
† Other outcomes were reported, but results were unusable for this review.
‡ Mean (range).
§ Negative values indicate a positive intervention effect.
C indicates comparator group; CT scan, computed tomography scan; EQ-5D, EuroQol 5D; GP, general practitioner; GPE, global perceived effect; HFAQ, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; I, intervention group; LBP, low back pain; LRS, lumbosacral radicular syndrome; MCS, mental component summary; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; n, sample size; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PCS, Physical Component Summary; RMDQ, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; SIP, Sickness Impact Profile; VAS, visual analog scale.
Full-text assessment revealed that pain intensity was reported in different ways between and within studies. Measurements were of back pain intensity and/or leg pain intensity and/or total (or global) pain intensity. Consequently, in this manuscript the predetermined pain intensity outcome was stratified into pain intensity (total pain intensity), back pain intensity, and leg pain intensity and these outcomes were analyzed separately.
All studies featured patients with LRS because of a herniated disc confirmed by medical imaging or LRS presumably caused by a herniated disc based on clinical symptoms. One of these studies also included patients with radicular pain because of a spinal stenosis.56
Two different groups were identified based on the application method of the steroid injection and/or comparator: ESIs versus saline injections and ESIs versus usual care. These groups were analyzed separately. The comparator group in one study received saline injections in the posterior ligaments proximal to the epidural space and gabapentin capsules.56
In none of the meta-analyses 10 or more studies were included. Therefore, publication bias was not checked. Table 2 summarizes the results of all analyses for all comparisons including all outcomes and follow-up periods. The GRADE assessments can be found in Supplemental Digital Content 2, https://links.lww.com/CJP/A761 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A762 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A763 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A764 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A765 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A766 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A767 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A768 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A769 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A770 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A771 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A772 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A773 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A774 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A775 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A776 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A777 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A778 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A779
TABLE 2 -
Overview of All Results
Outcome
Instrument (Scale*
Post-treatment
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Epidural steroid injections vs. saline injections
Function
ODI (0 to 100) & RMDQ (0 to 24)
SMD=0.18(2) (−0.30 to 0.65) LOW
SMD=−0.29(5) (−0.66 to 0.07) LOW
ODI (0 to 100)
MD=−1.59(7) †
MD=1.85(2) (−5.89 to 9.59) LOW
MD=1.09(2) (−3.43 to 5.61) LOW
RMDQ (0 to 24)
MD =−1.72
(2)
† 3.16 to −0.27)
LOW
Pain Intensity
NRS/VAS (0 to 100)
MD=−3.86(2) (−8.40 to 0.68) MODERATE
MD =−7.63
(4)
(−14.51 to -0.76)
LOW
MD=−15.38(1) (−43.93 to 13.17) VERY LOW
Back Pain Intensity
NRS/VAS (0 to 100)
MD=4.14(4) (−1.04 to 9.32) HIGH
MD=6.69(2) (−5.51 to 18.89) LOW
MD=4.23(2) (−3.73 to 12.19) LOW
Leg Pain Intensity
NRS/VAS (0 to 100)
MD=−1.69(6) (−8.77 to 5.39) MODERATE
MD=9.31(2) (−3.62 to 22.23) MODERATE
MD=2.64(2) (−5.36 to 10.64) LOW
Success Rate (≥50% improvement)
RR
=
1.92
(2)
(1.02 to 3.61)
VERY LOW
Health-Related Quality of Life
EQ-5D (−0.594 to 1) & SIP (0 to 100)
SMD=−0.21(2) (−0.47 to 0.06) LOW
EQ-5D (−0.594 to 1)
SMD=−0.22(1) (−0.70 to 0.27), translates to MD=−0.05(1) (−0.17 to 0.07) VERY LOW
Epidural steroid injections vs. usual care
Function
HFAQ (0 to 100) & ODI‡
SMD=−0.59(5) (−1.26 to 0.09) VERY LOW
SMD=−0.38(2) (−0.78 to 0.02) VERY LOW
HFAQ (0 to 100)
MD=−6.20(1) (−16.17 to 3.77) VERY LOW
ODI (0 to 100)
MD=−10.66(4) †
RMDQ (0 to 24)
MD=−1.80(1) (−4.35 to 0.75) VERY LOW
Pain Intensity
NRS/VAS (0 to 100)
MD=−6.30(1) (−18.64 to 6.04) VERY LOW
MD=−11.71(5) (−24.97 to 1.56) VERY LOW
MD=−4.00(3) (−9.94 to 1.94) VERY LOW
MD=−8.00(1) (−20.72 to 4.72) VERY LOW
Back Pain Intensity
NRS/VAS (0 to 100)
MD=−15.03(3) (−41.11 to 11.04) VERY LOW
MD=−1.00(1) (−13.10 to 11.10) VERY LOW
MD=−7.00(1) (−19.24 to 5.24) VERY LOW
Leg Pain Intensity
NRS/VAS (0 to 100)
MD=−5.53(2) (−12.94 to 1.87) LOW
MD=−3.00(1) (−15.13 to 9.13) VERY LOW
MD=−4.00(1) (−14.42 to 6.42) VERY LOW
Success Rate (≥20 points improvement)
RR=1.27(1) (0.79 to 2.03) VERY LOW
Health-Related Quality of Life
SF-36 MCS (0 to 100)
SMD=0.34(1) (−0.25 to 0.94), translates to MD=3.80(1) (−2.60 to 10.20) VERY LOW
SMD=0.28(1) (−0.31 to 0.88), translates to MD=3.20(1) (−3.40 to 9.80) VERY LOW
SMD=0.16(1) (−0.44 to 0.75), translate to MD=1.80(1) (−4.87 to 8.47) VERY LOW
SF-36 PCS (0 to 100)
SMD
=
0.77
(0.16 to 1.39), translates to
MD
=
9.50
(1)
(2.37 to 16.63)
VERY LOW
SMD
=
1.17
(0.52 to 1.81), translates to
MD
=
14.60
(1)
(7.34 to 21.86)
VERY LOW
SMD
=
0.96
(0.33 to 1.59), translates to
MD
=
11.90
(1)
(4.69 to 19.11)
VERY LOW
Data reflect effect size(N studies) , 95% CI, GRADE Certainty (VERY LOW, LOW, MODERATE, HIGH).
Italics indicate a significant difference; bold print signifies a clinically relevant difference.
Negative MD and SMD numbers favor the steroid group, except for Quality of Life. RR numbers >1.00 favor the steroid group.
* Scale mentioned where applicable.
† In addition to the pooled SMD, a pooled outcome with just one instrument was performed because of being able to pool different studies.
‡ ODI only included in the short-term analyses.
CI indicates confidence interval; EQ-5D, EuroQol 5D; HFAQ, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire; MCS, mental component summary; MD, mean difference; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PCS, physical component summary; RMDQ, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; RR, risk ratio; SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; SIP, sickness impact profile; SMD, standardized mean difference; VAS, visual analog scale.
ESIs Versus Saline Injections
Ten studies50,51,53–55,58–60,64,67 53,58,59,64 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A780 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A763 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A764 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A765 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A766 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A767 Table 2 ). One meta-analysis (see forest plot, Supplemental Digital Content 7, comparison B, https://links.lww.com/CJP/A766 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A763 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A764
There was 1 meta-analysis graded as high certainty of evidence: back pain intensity short-term. This analyses (see forest plot, Supplemental Digital Content 6, comparison A, https://links.lww.com/CJP/A765 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A763 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A764 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A766 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A766 Table 2 ).
Two of the 19 subgroup analyses showed clinically relevant effects. These were the single injection subgroup in function short-term (see forest plot, Supplemental Digital Content 14, comparison C, https://links.lww.com/CJP/A773 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A774
ESI Versus Usual Care
Seven studies, published in 8 references,52,56,57,61–63,65,66 56 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A781 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A768 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A769 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A770 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A771 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A772 Table 2 ). Three comparisons, all based on the same study, showed a clinically relevant effect on the physical component scale of the SF-36 for HRQOL in the short-term (MD=9.50; 95% CI=2.37-16.63), medium-term (MD=14.60; 95% CI=7.34-21.86), and long-term (MD=11.90; 95% CI=4.69-19.11) follow-up. The leg pain intensity short-term comparison (see forest plot, Supplemental Digital Content 12, comparison A, https://links.lww.com/CJP/A771 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A777 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A778 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A779
DISCUSSION
This systematic review included 17 RCTs of ESIs for LRS, because of a herniateddisc (or presumably caused by a herniated disc), compared with saline injections or usual care. We did not find any study including mainly or only patients with LRS because of lumbar spinal stenosis. We were able to perform 23 meta-analyses regarding the outcomes function, pain intensity, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, and HRQOL at post-treatment, short-term, medium-term, or long-term follow-up. The results suggest that there is currently insufficient evidence to support clinically relevant effects of ESIs compared with either saline injections or noninvasive usual care, in patients with LRS at any time point during follow-up.
Four of 40 comparisons showed a clinically relevant effect (Table 2 ). Three of these effects were based on single, small studies. The only clinically relevant meta-analysis (of 2 RCTs) was of very low certainty of evidence. Those RCTs studied responders with a >50% reduction of leg pain after an ESI compared with saline injections at short-term follow-up. The other clinically relevant results regarded a MD in the physical component scale of the SF-36 (with very low certainty of evidence) at the short-term, medium-term, and long-term follow-up. These results were all because of a single, small study. In the same study, no significant effects were found with regard to function, pain intensity, back pain intensity, and leg pain intensity.
Moderate to high certainty of evidence was found in 5 meta-analyses which could not prove the clinical relevance of ESIs compared with saline injections (Table 2 ). These analyses included the results on function short-term (ODI), pain intensity post-treatment, back pain intensity short-term and leg pain intensity short-term and medium-term. On the basis of the certainty of evidence, these results are fairly robust. Thus, the clinically relevant effectiveness of ESIs, as compared with saline injections, has not been proven. The evidence of other comparisons to saline injections is too uncertain to make robust recommendations.
Only 1 meta-analysis of ESIs compared with usual care was graded as low certainty of evidence (Table 2 ). All other comparisons of ESIs compared with usual care were graded as very low certainty of evidence. This evidence is too uncertain to make robust recommendations.
We performed 33 subgroup analyses, of which only 2 showed a clinically relevant effect (see forest plots, Supplemental Digital Content 14, comparison C, https://links.lww.com/CJP/A773 https://links.lww.com/CJP/A774
No study regarding the effectiveness of ESIs for LRS caused by a lumbar spinal stenosis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thus, the clinically relevant effectiveness is currently unknown. What is known is that ESIs combined with a local anesthetic agent does not provide better pain and functional improvement outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis compared with local anesthetic agent injections alone.69
A strength of this review is the methodological rigor as we followed the Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group for this review.28 19
In our analyses we did not take into account the possibility of washout effects when administering saline epidurally, even though individual patients can experience small benefits because of it. Two of the included studies administered saline in the surrounding tissues instead of epidurally.51,59
Nor did we take into account that the epidural administration of saline with or without steroids may be an effective intervention for managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation or spinal stenosis, as mentioned in a recently conducted systematic review and meta-analysis.70 70
A limitation of this review is the assumption that all meta-analyses included patients with LRS because of a herniated disc. However, just over a third of the studies included patients without MRI or CT-confirmed LRS, but based on clinical signs.51,53,62,65–67,71 3–5
All noninvasive interventions for LRS were aggregated as usual care in this review, since all can be advised by GPS as initial treatment options, either alone or combined.8 16
Another limitation of this review is that only 3 of the included studies reported on a predefined clinical success,55,56,58 72
The predetermined boundaries for minimal clinical differences were based on a consensus statement regarding within-group improvements.48 15 Table 2 ) did not result in any additional clinically relevant outcomes. So, also when less stringent boundaries for minimal clinical differences were applied, still no clinically relevant results were found. Therefore, we consider our conclusions regarding the clinical relevance as robust.
Our results are in line with the pooled results of other recently conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses.15,18–21
CONCLUSION
On the basis of our primary analyses as well as post hoc sensitivity analyses with less stringent boundaries for minimal clinical differences, we conclude with low to high certainty there is insufficient evidence that ESIs compared with saline injections for patients with LRS are clinically relevant at any time point during follow-up. With regard to the comparison of ESIs to noninvasive usual care, we conclude that the quality of the available evidence is too uncertain to make robust recommendations. We found no evidence with regard to ESIs in patients with LRS because of lumbar spinal stenosis. High-quality studies utilizing a predefined clinical success for comparing ESIs to saline injections and noninvasive usual care are necessary to identify potential clinically relevant effects of ESIs. Furthermore, efforts should be made to identify important treatment predictors for nonresponse to ESIs in order to avoid unnecessary treatment. Until the results of these studies are available, there is reason to consider whether the current daily practice of ESIs for patients suffering from LRS should continue.
REFERENCES
1. International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). Classification of Chronic Pain, Second Edition (Revised). Available at:
https://www.iasp-pain.org/PublicationsNews/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1673 . Accessed March 15, 2019.
2. Iversen T, Solberg TK, Romner B, et al. Accuracy of physical examination for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:206.
3. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Peul WC. Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica. BMJ. 2007;334:1313–1317.
4. Stirling ER, Patel MS, Sell PJ. Sciatica. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2016;77:C180–C183.
5. Ropper AH, Zafonte RD. Sciatica. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1240–1248.
6. Valat JP, Genevay S, Marty M, et al. Sciatica. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:241–252.
7. Younes M, Bejia I, Aguir Z, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of disk-related sciatica in an urban population in Tunisia. Joint Bone Spine. 2006;73:538–542.
8. Schaafstra A, Spinnewijn W, Bons S, et al. NHG-Standaard Lumbosacraal radiculair syndroom (Tweede herziening). Huisarts Wet. 2015;58:308–320.
9. Miranda H, Viikari-Juntura E, Martikainen R, et al. Individual factors, occupational loading, and physical exercise as predictors of sciatic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:1102–1109.
10. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1735–1747.
11. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, et al. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2245–2256.
12. Peul WC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, et al. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1355–1358.
13. Lequin MB, Verbaan D, Jacobs WC, et al. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica: 5-year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002534.
14. Van Boxem K, Van Zundert J Van Zundert J, Huygen F, Patijn J, van Kleef M. Lumbosacraal—lumbosacraal radiculaire pijn. Praktische richtlijnen anesthesiologische pijnbestrijding. Utrecht: Tijdstroom, Uitgeverij De; 2010:440.
15. Pinto RZ, Maher CG, Ferreira ML, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injections in the management of sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:865–877.
16. Lewis RA, Williams NH, Sutton AJ, et al. Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses. Spine J. 2015;15:1461–1477.
17. Liu K, Liu P, Liu R, et al. Steroid for epidural injection in spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:707–716.
18. Bhatia A, Flamer D, Shah PS, et al. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for treating lumbosacral radicular pain from herniated intervertebral discs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:857–870.
19. Manchikanti L, Knezevic NN, Boswell MV, et al. Epidural injections for lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2016;19:E365–E410.
20. Chou R, Hashimoto R, Friedly J, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy and spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:373–381.
21. Shamliyan TA, Staal JB, Goldmann D, et al. Epidural steroid injections for radicular lumbosacral pain: a systematic review. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25:471–489; e1-50.
22. Lee JH, Kim DH, Kim DH, et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy of epidural injection with or without steroid in lumbosacral disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2018;21:449–468.
23. Smith CC, McCormick ZL, Mattie R, et al. The effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain: a comprehensive review of the published data. Pain Med. 2020;21:472–487.
24. Manchikanti L, Nampiaparampil DE, Manchikanti KN, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of saline, local anesthetics, and steroids in epidural and facet joint injections for the management of spinal pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6 (suppl 4):S194–S235.
25. Bicket MC, Gupta A, Brown CHt, et al. Epidural injections for spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the “control” injections in randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 2013;119:907–931.
26. Cassuto J, Sinclair R, Bonderovic M. Anti-inflammatory properties of local anesthetics and their present and potential clinical implications. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:265–282.
27. Cruz FF, Rocco PR, Pelosi P. Anti-inflammatory properties of anesthetic agents. Crit Care. 2017;21:67.
28. Furlan AD, Malmivaara A, Chou R, et al. 2015 updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1660–1673.
29. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–1012.
30. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–273.
31. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:341–352.
32. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:141–144.
33. Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P. Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3140–3151.
34. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18:1007–1019.
35. EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
36. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33:375–384.
37. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993;2:217–227.
38. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.
39. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
40. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19:787–805.
41. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
42. Higgins JPT, Green S eds.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at:
http://www.handbook.cochrane.org .
43. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Stephenson M, et al. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:196–207.
44. Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Demystifying fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Evid Based Ment Health. 2014;17:53–57.
45. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558.
46. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
47. Simmonds M. Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots. Syst Rev. 2015;4:24.
48. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:90–94.
49. GRADEpro (Computer program on www.gradepro.org). Version 3.2. McMaster University; 2014.
50. Abedini N, Pourfathi H, Eskandari M, et al. Comparison of epidural methylprednisolone, bupivacaine and normal saline injection in chronic low back pain due to discal hernia. Aras Part Med Int Press. 2018;5:57–61.
51. Arden NK, Price C, Reading I, et al. A multicentre randomized controlled trial of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica: The WEST study. Rheumatology. 2005;44:1399–1406.
52. Buchner M, Zeifang F, Brocai DRC, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injection in the conservative management of sciatica. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;375:149–156.
53. Bush K, Hillier S. A controlled study of caudal epidural injections of triamcinolone plus procaine for the management of intractable sciatica. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16:572–575.
54. Carette S, Leclaire R, Marcoux S, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1634–1640.
55. Cohen SP, White RL, Kurihara C, et al. Epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline in subacute sciatica a multicenter, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:551–559.
56. Cohen SP, Hanling S, Bicket MC, et al. Epidural steroid injections compared with gabapentin for lumbosacral radicular pain: multicenter randomized double blind comparative efficacy study. BMJ. 2015;350:h1748.
57. Dincer U, Kiralp MZ, Cakar E, et al. Caudal epidural injection versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of low back pain accompanied with radicular pain. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74:467–471.
58. Ghahreman A, Ferch R, Bogduk N. The efficacy of transforaminal injection of steroids for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. Pain Med. 2010;11:1149–1168.
59. Iversen T, Solberg TK, Romner B, et al. Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d5278.
60. Karppinen J, Malmivaara A, Kurunlahti M, et al. Periradicular infiltration for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2001;26:1059–1067.
61. Kotb HA, Effat DA, Awad MR, et al. CT-guided transforaminal
epidural steroid injection and vertebral axial decompression in management of acute lumbar disc herniation. Egypt Rheumatol. 2018;40:67–72.
62. Laiq N, Khan MN, Iqbal MJ, et al. Comparison of epidural steroid injections with conservative management in patients with lumbar radiculopathy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2009;19:539–543.
63. Mondal P, Goswami S, Basak S. Assessment of efficacy of transforaminal
epidural steroid injection for management of low back pain with unilateral radiculopathy in industrial workers: a randomized control trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:UC01–UC05.
64. Nandi J, Chowdhery A. A randomized controlled clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of caudal
epidural steroid injection in lumbosacral sciatica. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:RC04–RC08.
65. Spijker-Huiges A, Winters JC, Van Wijhe M, et al. Steroid injections added to the usual treatment of lumbar radicular syndrome: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in general practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:341.
66. Spijker-Huiges A, Vermeulen K, Winters JC, et al. Epidural steroids for lumbosacral radicular syndrome compared to usual care: quality of life and cost utility in general practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:381–387.
67. Valat JP, Giraudeau B, Rozenberg S, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica: a randomised, double blind, controlled clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:639–643.
68. Vad VB, Bhat AL, Lutz GE, et al. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections in lumbosacral radiculopathy: a prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:11–16.
69. Meng H, Fei Q, Wang B, et al. Epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:4657–4667.
70. Manchikanti L, Knezevic NN, Sanapati J, et al. Is epidural injection of sodium chloride solution a true placebo or an active control agent? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2021;24:41–59.
71. Friedman BW, Esses D, Solorzano C, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of single-dose IM corticosteroid for radicular low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:E624–E629.
72. McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, et al. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:163–169.
